Pan Am premiered on Sunday to the tune of just under eleven million viewers, proving that Hollywood might actually be right: Mad Men-inspired 1960s period pieces are selling better than sex right now. But are they? Are they really? Here's what I thought about the series premiere.
The Premise:
The show centers on four adventurous, girdle-clad 'stewardesses' in the 1960s, all of them on the run from traditional female stereotypes. (Hello, female demographic!) Colette (Karine Vanasse) is a French native who seeks adventure through romantic encounters on her European layovers. Maggie (Christina Ricci) is an independent type who wears pants and lives with a writer in New York City; she's clearly been with the airline the longest, and has garnered some serious respect. Kate (Kelli Garner) is a dependable gal who's out to prove herself. She finds an outlet as an undercover agent for a U.S. Intelligence agency. And Laura (Margot Robbie), Kate's younger sister, is the naive newest addition to the Pan Am crew. She followed her sister into the job after a meltdown at her own wedding, which resulted in a serious case of Runaway Bride.
What Works:
Everything about Pan Am is just fine, but that's the problem: It's just fine. It's set up to be a perfectly acceptable, spic-and-span re-telling of the 1960s as it looked through rose-colored glasses. The acting is decent—nothing phenomenal, nothing too bad. At times I felt like Ricci was forcing her character's "I'm so confident and motherly" disposition, but it wasn't so obvious that it
detracted from the episode as a whole. I liked that Sunday's premiere spanned the length of the maiden voyage of Pan Am's newest jet, the Clipper Majestic—it's a cool idea to center each episode around one leg of a flight. I liked the costuming, but what can I say? Like everyone else in America right now, I'm a sucker for '60s fashion. In essence, this show has everything you'd want out of an idealistic period piece: romance, espionage, and style. But that's really all it has so far.
What's Missing:
Cynicism and grit. I like a little bit of the grizzly stuff in my TV, and Pan Am doesn't have any of it, yet. I get that the women are meant to uphold a certain aesthetic standard: composure under pressure, a perfectly coiffed appearance, etc, but there's no conflict in that. I wanted to see more of what's happening under the surface. Even Colette's romantic scandal—in the premiere, she ran into one of her 'affairs' only to discover he has a wife and child—was too pristine for my taste; she seemed mildly affected, but she wasn't that pissed. There was no cathartic, "I know I have to stuff it, but I'm MAD AS HELL!" moment; why should we care about her story if she doesn't? Laura, meanwhile, ditched her wedding to become a flight attendant. Great—but what are the repercussions? Where was the regret, or the come-to-Jesus moment where she questions whether or not she's made the right choice? That's something that should have gone down in the first episode. As it stands right now, Pan Am is shiny and new. It's pretty to look at, but it's premiere didn't hook me with its characters or their dreams.
What I Really Want to See:
As I sat there in the dark watching this thing, I actually started to wish for things out loud.
"I wish these characters were struggling a little bit more."
"I wish I felt like rooting for them, instead of just watching them root for themselves."
"I wish we could see what it really means to them to be where they are. I wish we could see what the other side really looks like."
"I wish I knew who Laura's husband was. Was he a nice guy? Is she a totally selfish jerk, or what?"
"I wish Laura would have a meltdown, and prove to me she's human."
Right now, the series is wearing the 1960s genre like a stiffly-pressed uniform. It's sharp, it's classy, but it doesn't seem real. I need to see the wrinkles, ABC. I need them to be just a little bit deeper. And then I'll board Pan Am's plane.
What do you think? Are you digging on the squeaky-clean facade, or are looking for a little more dirt?
I liked it as was; however, your suggestions are great, too! What I want to know is... what happened to the show? I was watching it on Sundays at 9 p.m. and... now it's not there anymore. Wha'as up? I miss the show!!!
The pilot episode is good but needs improvement.
I understand what you're saying, but I actually liked the fact that this show was laid back and casual in its storytelling, especially after being hit over the head with drama and plot twists in shows like "Terra Nova" and "Hart of Dixie". This show almost seemed confident and relaxed in its delivery. Of course, if it stays too relaxed and drama free, it may start annoying me by midseason. But I'm definitely interested in watching more of "Pan Am" right now.
C. Killian - obviously you weren't around or old enough to remember 60's but be that as it may, I was. Premiere showed they have certainly captured period accuracy in the social, styling and language aspects. I think you are being too critical too quickly, but then again this new generation of Americans have no patience what-so-ever. Give it a few episodes before you lower the sword and behead the show.
Looking forward to the Lost crossover episode.
Found it boring. Its something I'd watch only because I don't have anything better to do. It will probably be something that sits on my dvr until most shows are in reruns or I don't have anything better to do.
booooooring
I had problems hearing the dialogue over the soaring soundtrack.
After the wife's snide comment, a comeback was called for.
I enjoyed the show, didn't expect to though. And i don't exactly agree with your review. This was the pilot episode, we were being introduced to the characters and their lives. Why rush into a storyline of why, when. where, who, what. Putting too much into a pilot episode is never a good thing. You feel like you're being forced feed. I'm pretty sure we'll see Laura break down soon enough, and Colette get tired of being a mistress.
I watched it. It was nothing spectacular. I think the problem was it was too "sugar-pop" It was like everyone was aware they were in the 60's and had it in the back of their mind that they were suppose to act like everything was swell. The show has potential, but for now, the only reason I will be watching it is because it is on right after Desperate Housewives...
I enjoyed it. It was kind of dull the first 20 mins or so but it picked right up in my opinon.
I actually liked it a lot. Hopefully it will build into something with more "umphf" if you get my drift, but for a pilot, this was a great start, in my opinion.
i wasn't sure what to expect, but i thought it was pretty good. i assumed it'd be some sort of show like Grey's Anatomy where it's just people in their jobplace and personal dramas.. which would have bored the hell out of me especially since Grey's Anatomy has become one of the worst shows on tv.. but then that one girl ended up being a spy. i thought that was a neat spin.
I have the feeling I've read a review about a show the writer wanted to see and not about what the scenarists actually wanted to do. We can only rate a work of art according to the intentions of his/her creator and if he reached his/her goal or not. As a series with a voluntary unrealistic stereotyped vision of the 60s I think the Pilot was good. It managed to introduce all the characters and develop some interesting story-line without betraying the tone and the spirit of the show (unlike The Playboy Club's pilot). I have the feeling the creators know exactly where they're going and that's actually the first time in many years I have seen a pilot with so much cohesion. YES it doesn't seem real but that's exactly what they wanted to do and we should not judge an artist on what he never intended to do.moreless
"We can only rate a work of art according to the intentions of his/her creator" Tell that the Nielsen Ratings system, TV executives, Advertising Agencies, and free thinking people.
I wanna see Laura naked. It was much better than I expected.
I want to see Maggie naked.... oh yeah... where did I put my After.Life DVD?
That's the spin off, Porn Am
Well I'm happy you found the show enjoyable, considering how high you set the bar on good television. :)
I agree with every single word of this review. These are exactly the things I reacted to too. It was in many ways a fine show, but that final push to make it more interesting was lacking. It was slightly too sugar coated, too clean-cut. But I guess a pilot is always difficult to do when all the different characters need to be introduced in some way while creating some kind of a plot. For that very reason I gave The Playboy Club a second chance, because the pilot doesn't tell everything.
Before I began watching Pan Am I was afraid that all that time spent on the plane would soon become tedious to watch. How many episodes can you take watching drama unfold in a flying steel tube? And my fears came true. I got bored already during the few minutes they spent in the air. I hope they make the flying part more interesting in the future. There is potential to create some very interesting events when characters are stuck in a confined space. Nevertheless, Christina Ricci deserves an honourable mention. She was cute as a button, as always.moreless
Did anyone notice Ricci's hair change after her first scene? She answers the phone and her hair is long (below shoulders), then once she is at the airport it is short (well above shoulders). It didn't look like it was styled, it looked like it was cut shorter. Did Taxis also provided hair cutting services in the sixties?
She had to Helicopter in to the airport and was in such a rush its hard to believe she took the time to cut her hair.
That was bugging me the whole show!! I was wondering if anyone else noticed it. I even rewound it to check!
No one likes a Nazi.
Remember the little girl at the end of the episode with her nose pressed against the glass watching the four stewardesses walk past? Well, that was me 40 to 45 years ago! Yes, I was one of those little girls who thought being a stewardess was such a cool and glamorous job. Mind I didn't know the word glamour then. All I know is they looked so pretty and pulled together and I wanted to be just like then. Back then that was enough. I wish people would stop imposing politically correct 2011 values onto a 1963 show. As for what you want to see...be patient and wait. I'm pretty sure the show will address those issues and more. People are ridiculous in the way they won't wait for a story to play out but want everything laid out on the table with no sense of anticipation or mystery. Shows how we live in truly jaded times. I for one wish Pan Am the best of success and may the show fly as long as the airline...and that was 64 years just FTR.moreless
This site and all TV critiques in general must review and discuss television on a per episode basis, that is simply how television is formatted. Would you rather every TV.com article paint "WAIT AND SEE" across your screen?
I liked the pilot a lot better than I had expected. And I did have the feeling that it starts out shiny and new because that's how it's always been portrayed - the new sort of woman that every little girl wants to be, independent through all sorts of ordeals. But probably, as the series progresses, that will all fall apart and show the true grittiness underneath. If it doesn't, I'll admit you're right. But I think there's more behind this pilot, so I'll continue watching.
will still give it a twirl and see
I smirked and scoffed at Pan Am's pretentious, magical mystery tour orchestrated score. It epitomizes Killan's stiffly pressed uniform metaphor perfectly.
I was expecting something glamorous and sophisticated, sort of what madman does, instead I watched a cheesy soup opera like show. Not bad, just not awesome.